This is a chapter from the book “Dangerous Concepts”
Inviting non-Muslims to Islam is a matter that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala has made obligatory on the Muslims. The Muslims have been doing this for fourteen centuries, and continue call others to Islam whether they are from the People of the Book or not. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“Invite (O Muhammad) to the Way of your Lord with Hikma (clear proof) and fair preaching, and argue with them in a way that is better.” [Al-Nahl: 125]
And he Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said in his letter to Heraclius, the Roman Emperor: “Verily, I invite you with the call of Islam. Embrace Islam and you shall be safe and Allah will grant you the reward twice. If you turn away then upon you will bear the sin of the people under your rule.”
Thus, our call to the non-Muslims is an invitation to have conviction in Islam and to abandon Kufr.
As for the idea of interfaith dialogue that is being circulated nowadays, it is a foreign, evil and Western idea that has no basis in Islam. This is because it calls for mutual relationships between different religions. It calls for a new fabricated religion which the Kuffar want the Muslims to embrace instead of Islam, because the advocates and followers of this idea are the Kuffar themselves.
Internationally, this idea started in 1932 when France sent representatives to confer with the scholars of al-Azhar University about the idea of uniting the three religions: Islam, Christianity and Judaism. This was then followed by the Paris Conference of 1933 attended by orientalists and missionaries from every university in France, England, Switzerland, America, Italy, Poland, Spain, Turkey and others. The Conference of world religions in 1936 was the last conference of religions before the Second World War, which distracted the Europeans from these conferences.
In 1964 Pope Paolo VI sent a letter in which he called for dialogue between the religions. The Vatican then published a book in 1969 with the title: ‘Guide to dialogue between the Muslims and Christians.’
During the 1970’s and 1980’s more than thirteen interfaith and intercultural meetings and conferences were held, the most prominent of which was the Second World Conference of Religion and Peace held in Belgium attended by 400 delegates from various world religions. Another conference was held in Cordoba in Spain attended by Muslim and Christian representatives from 23 countries. These two conferences were held in 1974 followed by the Christian-Muslim assembly in Qurtaj, Tunis in 1979.
It was in the 1990s that those calling for interfaith dialogue became most active. Thus they held the Arab-European Conference in 1993 in Jordan, followed in 1994 by the Khartoum Conference for interfaith dialogue. In 1995 two dialogue conferences were held, one in Stockholm and the other in Amman, both of which were followed by the Conference “Islam and Europe” at the University of Ahl al-Bayt in Jordan in 1996.
Justifications for dialogue:
One of the most significant justifications presented by delegates at the interfaith conferences is standing firm in the face of the disbelief and atheism represented by the Soviet Union before its collapse. Communism was depicted as a danger to the divine religions, which would threaten their cultural achievements. Then they pretended to weep for humanity and to fight for the defence of all believers in the world. They sought to define truth in relative terms, emphasising that no individual and no religion could claim sole ownership of the truth, but it should be subject to the democratic process where the majority opinion is closest to the truth.
Recommendations of conference participants:
The following were the most important recommendations of the conferences held in the name of interfaith and intercultural dialogue and between Islam and Europe:
1. Devising and adopting new meanings and provisions for words such as disbelief, atheism, polytheism, belief, Islam, moderation, extremism and fundamentalism to ensure that these words would not become factors of division between people of different religions.
2. Identifying shared elements in the three religions, which would include creed, morals and culture, and to place emphasis on positive cooperation between the religions and cultures, since all the people of the Book were accepted as believers, and worshippers of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.
3. The formation of a joint document on human rights to permit peace and co-existence between the followers of different religions. This would be achieved by eliminating the feeling of barriers of blood between the religions and by removing the concept of the cultures of different peoples and policies of different states.
4. A comprehensive review of the history and education curricula, so that they become free of any incitement or hatred. Religious education would be considered part of basic humanitarian studies that aim to create personalities open to human cultures and with mutual understanding of others. Therefore, the study of certain beliefs and worships had to be disqualified.
5. Raising interest in studying the following subjects and formulating unified concepts for them: justice, peace, women rights, human rights, democracy, work morals, pluralism, freedom, world peace, peaceful co-existence, cultural openness, civil society etc.
The means and styles of interfaith dialogue:
After the failure of the Western Kuffar in distancing the Muslims from their Aqeedah via the missionaries, orientalists, cultural works, the media, intellectual and political deception, they resorted to government authorities in their countries and in the countries of their agents. They began to hold conferences and seminars, formed joint work teams and established centres of study in their countries and in the Muslim lands, such as the Oxford Centre for Islamic studies, the Centre for Middle Eastern Studies at Durham University, the American college of the Holy Cross, the Muslim League, the Royal Academy for the study of Islamic Culture, the University of Ahl al-Bayt and the World Council of Churches etc.
They deliberately used terminologies and pretentious general expressions with undefined meanings to create deception and delusion. For example, terms such as renovation, openness to the world, human civilisation, universal sciences, the need for peaceful co-existence, renunciation of partisanship and extremism, globalisation etc., were all examples of this.
They mixed the concepts of science and culture, and the concepts of Hadharah (civilisation) and Madaniyya (material progression) to justify attacking those who hold to their specific way of life. They claimed that such people opposed science and technology and the civilisation arising from them, and accused them of being reactionary and backward, even though this is not the case in Islam. Islam opens its gates to science and to the technology that is derived from this science, but closes them in the face of any Thaqafa (culture) or Madaniyya from other than the Thaqafa and Hadharah of Islam. This is because these thoughts and concepts are related to the behaviour of the human being, which has to be controlled by the Islamic concepts about life.
They painted certain capitalist thoughts in glowing tones to the Muslims and promoted them by claiming that they do not contradict Islam to such an extent that some Muslims considered them as part of Islam, such as democracy, freedom, pluralism, socialism and others. On the other hand, they denounced certain Islamic thoughts and described them as uncivilised and out of date, such as Jihad, the Hudood, polygyny and other Shara’i rules.
They subjected the study of the Islamic texts to the Capitalist way of thinking, which makes the reality the source of the rule and not the subject of the thought. It makes benefit the criterion in adopting or leaving the rule rather than the Halal and the Haram. This incited some Muslims to invent certain principles, which did not rely on the Shara’i texts to understand Islam. This is like the Fiqh of reality, the Fiqh of balances, necessity permits the prohibited things and others. This resulted in the dilution of certain rules of Islam and non-differentiation of the foreign rule from the original rule, and even between what constitutes Kufr and what constitutes Islam. For example, Riba (usury) has become acceptable and martyrdom is now portrayed as suicide.
The Kuffar who initiated this dialogue are now generalising and widening its scope. It will no longer remain restricted to the few who participate in conferences and seminars. Rather it will include all sections of society from men, women, the educated and labourers. This is done via the universities, institutes of study, parties and associations. It is, as some conference delegates have described, joining the western Hadharah in economics, social relations, politics, education etc. Thus, Capitalism – according to their claim – is humanity, rationalism, freedom and democracy. It is the new and successful Hadharah. As for Islam, it is seen as blind faith, despotism and heritage and depicted as the sovereignty of religion, slavery and polygyny. It is thus an uncivilised religion!
One of the styles used to blind the Muslims to the real objective of these conferences is to invite those belonging to certain beliefs such as Hinduism, Buddhism and Sikhism to attend alongside the Muslims, Christians and Jews. This happened at the World Conference for Religion and Peace in Japan and in a seminar in Beirut in 1970, to ensure that Muslims would not suspect they were the only targets of the dialogue. How could so-called Muslim scholars allow Islam to be placed on an equal stage with Buddhism and other religions?!
The true viewpoint of the West towards Islam:
The West, which calls for dialogue with the Muslims and heads conferences of dialogue, views Islam as the enemy. This viewpoint is the motive for such dialogue and governs and directs this dialogue. For example, the encyclopaedia of French culture, which is a renowned point of reference, states that the Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him) is: ‘a killer, the Antichrist, kidnaps women and the greatest enemy to the human mind.’ Likewise most of the textbooks in Western Europe describe the Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him), Islam and the Muslims with the most ugliest of descriptions. Recently, the following has been mentioned in the book ‘The End of History’ written by the American thinker Fukuyama: “The Capitalist system is the eternal salvation for man on earth. Islam, despite its weakness and disintegration, threatens this new victorious way of life (i.e. capitalism).” The former General Secretary of NATO, Javier Solana, said: ‘Fundamentalist Islam is the danger which threatens the geopolitics of the future.’ The orientalist Barnard Lewis said about Islam and Capitalism: ‘They are contradictory. There is no scope for dialogue.’ And Samuel Huntington, professor of political science at Harvard University and the Director of the Institute of Strategic Studies said: “The clash between civilisations (Hadharah) will dominate foreign policy. The dividing lines between the civilisations (Hadharah) will be the battle lines in the future.” Then he says: “Religion vehemently distinguishes itself and it is clear to the people. A person can be half French and half Arab…but it is difficult for a man to be half Catholic and half Muslim…”
Where is the dialogue they call us for from this enmity?
When these statements are compared with the hostile actions which have come from the West against Islam and the Muslims, such as the Crusades, the extermination of Muslims in Spain, the destruction of the Khilaafah State and afterwards the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine, and the portrayal of Islam and the Islamic movements as
terrorist and extremist. When we compare these statements, we realise the meaning and the aims of the dialogue that the Kafir West is conducting with the Muslims.
The aims of the Dialogue:
The primary aim that the capitalists are working to achieve from the dialogue between religions and Hadharah is to prevent the return of Islam to life’s affairs as a comprehensive system. This is because it threatens the survival of their ideology and Hadharah and will destroy their interests and influence.
As for other partial aims that serve their primary aim, these are various. Thus the West aims to paint the world according to the colour of the Capitalist civilisation, especially in the Muslim lands, in order to replace the Islamic Hadharah. This will make it easy for them to remove the Islamic Thaqafa (culture) from the minds of the people. They aim to achieve that by shaking the confidence of Muslims in the Islamic Thaqafa (culture) and in its sources and principles. They aim to neutralise Islam in the clash of civilisations by stripping it of its most important characteristics which distinguish it from other religions, namely the political aspect with which the Khilafah would be established to look after the affairs of the people according to the rules of Islam and carry it to the whole of mankind.
The Capitalists also aim to reshape the personality of the Muslim anew such that he finds no shame in leaving the duty (Wajib) and doing the prohibited (Haram). Then they aim to corrupt the Islamic desires and values and destroy in the Muslim the zeal for Islam such that he no longer hates Kufr and the Kafireen, and he no longer enjoins good and forbids evil. With this they will remove the cultural immunity of the Islamic Ummah with which she resisted all external elements, and will remove the emotional and intellectual barriers that threatened the presence of Capitalist civilisation in Muslim lands. Thus, preserving their influence and interests becomes easier and they guarantee their survival and continuance.
The intention behind this dialogue, which the Kuffar and their agent rulers guard in the Muslim countries with an entourage of scholars and thinkers, is to create a new religion for the Muslims. It is based upon the creed of separating religion from life, and in which man is the Legislator instead of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, the Creator of mankind. They are as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala describes them:
“And they will never cease fighting you until they turn you back from your Deen.” [Al-Baqarah: 217]
And as Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad) till you follow their religion.” [Al-Baqarah: 120]
Since the basis of the Islamic civilisation is the Islamic ‘Aqeedah and the basis of Western civilisation is the Capitalist ‘Aqeedah, then merging them is impossible. So the intention behind the dialogue led by the Kafir West is to make the Muslims abandon their Islamic concepts to the advantage of the Capitalist concepts. This is because they realise that the combination of two contradictory beliefs is impossible.
Thus the dialogue between religions and civilisations for establishing common factors and manufacturing a new human civilisation is unrealistic. There must be an intellectual struggle between religions and civilisations to know truth from falsehood, ugly from pretty, and good from evil. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:
“Then, as for the foam it passes away as scum upon the banks, while that which is good for mankind remains in the earth.” [Ar-Rad: 17]
As for the dialogue they call to, it is a dialogue represented by the enemies of Islam with the aim of destroying Islam, the Islamic civilisation and the Islamic Ummah. Therefore the Muslims must adopt and perfect the necessary tools of struggle, which are manifested in the re-establishment of the Khilafah State that will embark on an intellectual and material struggle to spread the sublime Islamic Hadharah and remove the false and corrupt Hadharahs.
The statement regarding the sons of Abraham:
This viewpoint has come to strengthen the dialogue between the three religions because these three divine religions were brought by the Prophets Muhammad, Jesus and Moses (peace be upon them). They all derive their ancestry to one father and he is Abraham (peace be upon him). Therefore, it is incumbent on the followers of these religions to live together in peace because they are descendants from one origin in lineage and religion.
This is from one angle. From the other angle this viewpoint supports the so-called peace process in the Middle East and the normalisation of relations with the Jews. This is to accept one part of the Jewish and Western conspiracy against Islam and the Muslims by usurping Palestine and al-Masjid al-Aqsa; and by implanting a poisoned dagger in the heart of the Islamic Ummah. This also justifies the participation of the Jews, Christians and Muslims in their guardianship over Jerusalem (Al-Quds), which contains the holy sites, in their capacity as Muslims who all belong to one religion – the religion of Abraham (peace be upon him), the father of the Prophets.
To highlight the error of this viewpoint and to refute it we need to clarify three issues:
(1) The linguistic issue
The word ‘Aslama’ in its linguistic meaning means ‘Inqaada’ (i.e. to submit). The Noble Qur’an has used it with this meaning in the stories of the Prophets and in describing their followers who submitted to the Order of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala. He said on the tongue of Nuh (peace be upon him and he came before Ibraheem):
“My reward is only from Allah, and I have been commanded to be one of those who submit (Muslimeen).” [Yunus: 72]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said on the tongue of Ibraheem and Isma’eel (peace be upon them):
“Our Lord! And make us submissive (two Muslims) unto You and of our offspring a nation submissive (Muslimatan) unto You.” [Al-Baqarah: 128]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said regarding the people of Lut (peace be upon him):
“But We found not there any household of those who submitted (muslimeen) except one (i.e. of Lut and his two daughters).” [Az-Zariyat: 36]
And on the tongue of Musa (peace be upon him):
“Then in Him put your trust if you are those who have submitted (to Allah’s will [Muslimeen]).” [Yunus: 84]
And on the tongue of the Hawariyyoon, the followers of ‘Isa (peace be upon him):
“We believe in Allah, and bear witness that we are those who have submitted (muslimoon).” [Al-Imran: 52]
So the word ‘Muslimoon’ found in the Ayats means ‘those who have submitted’ (Munqaadoon). It does not mean that they professed one Deen, which is Islam as revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him). Islam was not known to them and they were not addressed with it. Rather, each people had a particular Messenger who called them to a specific Shari’ah. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“To each (Ummah) among you, We have prescribed a law (Shari’ah) and a clear way (Minhaaj).” [Al-Ma’ida: 48]
After the revelation (Wahy) came down to Muhammad (peace be upon him), the revelation took up certain Arabic words and transferred them from their conventional linguistic meanings to Shara’i meanings. The Shari’ah texts from the Qur’an and Sunnah have clarified this. One of these transferred expressions is the word ‘Islam’ which linguistically used to mean ‘submission’ (Inqiyaad), and became a Shara’i meaning – the Deen revealed by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala to His Messenger Muhammad (peace be upon him). Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said, addressing the whole of mankind until the Day of Judgement:
“I have chosen for you Islam as your Deen.” [Al-Ma’ida: 3]
And Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“And whosoever seeks a Deen other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him.” [Al-Imran: 85]
And the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “Islam has been built on five.” Other religions are not based on these five.
After the divine transference of the meaning of the word ‘Islam’, the words derived from it, such as the verb and active participle (Aslama and Muslim), if used without a Qareena (context), indicate the Shara’i meaning only. If the conventional linguistic meaning is intended this would then require a Qareena to change it from the Shara’i meaning.
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala for example says:
“Ibraheem was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one who truly submitted (Musliman) (to Allah’s will).” [Al-Imran: 67]
This does not mean that Ibraheem (peace be upon him) was on the Deen that Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala revealed to Muhammad (peace be upon him). Rather it means that Ibraheem (peace be upon him) had submitted to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala regarding that which Allah revealed to him, unlike the Jews and Christians who fabricated the Deen of their Prophets.
As for the statement that Muhammad (peace be upon him), ‘Isa and Musa (peace be upon them) were on the Deen of Ibraheem (peace be upon him), it means that they believed in the same ‘Aqeedah, which is the foundation of every Deen revealed from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala.
This is what is meant from His Subhanahu wa Ta’ala saying:
“He (Allah) has ordained for you the same Deen which He ordained for Nuh, and that which We have inspired to you (O Muhammad), and that which We ordained for Ibraheem, Musa and ‘Isa saying you should establish the Deen and do not become divided over it.” [Ash-Shura: 13]
So the word ‘Deen’ in the Ayah means the foundation of the Deen, which is the ‘Aqeedah. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala specified this when He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“To each (Ummah) among you, We have prescribed a law (Shari’ah) and a clear way (Minhaaj).” [Al-Ma’ida: 48]
(2) The Shar’i issue
Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala sent Muhammad (peace be upon him) as the seal of the Prophets and the Messengers to the whole of mankind. He ordered them to leave whatever religion they were following, whether divine or not, and called on them to embrace Islam as a Deen. Whoever responded to the call became a Muslim and whoever rejected committed Kufr. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“And say to those who were given the Book (the Jews and Christians) and to those who are illiterates (Arab pagans): ‘Do you (also) submit yourselves (to Allah in Islam)?’ If they do, they are rightly guided; but if they turn away, your duty is only to convey the Message; and Allah is All-Seer of (His) slaves.” [Al-Imran: 20]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Book (Jews and Christians) and among the Mushrikeen (polytheists), were not going to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence, a Messenger (Muhammad) from Allah.” [Al-Baiyinah:1-2]
They are not separated from the Kufr except by their embracing of Islam. The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: “By the one in whose Hand lies Muhammad’s soul! No one from this Ummah, whether Jew or Christian, who hears about me and then dies without believing in what I have been sent with, except that he will be from the inhabitants of the Fire.” So the people are all called to gain conviction in Islam, and whoever does not profess Islam after the matter has been proven to him, then he is definitely a Kafir. After Muhammad was charged with prophethood, if the Jews and Christians continued to hold to their religion, they are considered Kafir according to the Quranic text. It is forbidden to describe them as Muslims, and whosoever believes that they or others are Muslims, he is a Kafir. This is because with this belief of his he has rejected clear Shara’i texts that are definite in meaning and authenticity. If they die on this belief then they will be from among the inhabitants of the Fire.
(3) The issue concerning the sons of Ibraheem (Peace be upon them)
This is a call to the bond of nationalism. It is a bond arising from the survival instinct and is shallow and emotional in nature. It is not suitable for man because it cannot bind one human being with another if they differ in lineage.
The bond of the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) has been negated by time. It does not exist today because the descendants of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) and his offspring have mixed with other peoples through marriage, social intercourse, migration and wars. Today it is impossible to separate them from other peoples. Since the followers of the three religions can be found among all peoples and tribes of the world, they have mixed on the basis of religion and not on the basis of ethnicity. Therefore, applying the claim regarding the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) on the Muslims, Jews and Christians and on those who live around al-Masjid al-Aqsa or any others is a pointless exercise and is incorrect. The intention is to fight Islam, justify the peace process and normalise relations with the Jewish entity of Israel that exists on the usurped land of the Muslims; all of this to give legitimacy to the terrible crimes committed by the treacherous rulers of the Islamic lands under the orders of their masters, the Kuffar of the West.
The family or nationalist bond is like the bond of the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him). It is rejected by the Shari’’ah as a basis to organise the relationships of the people. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“Say: If your fathers, your sons, your brothers, your wives, your kindred, the wealth that you have gained, the commerce in which you fear decline, and the dwellings in which you delight…are dearer to you than Allah and His Messenger, and striving hard and fighting in His Path, then wait until Allah brings about His Decision (torment). And Allah guides not the people who are Fasiqoon (disobedient).” [At-Tauba: 24]
Thus, the order of Allah is above every nationalistic, family or benefit bond. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala clarified the shallowness of this bond to the previous Messengers. He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said:
“And Nuh called upon his Lord and said: ‘O my Lord! Verily, my son is of my family! And certainly your promise is true, and You are the most just of the judges’. And He said: ‘O Nuh! Surely, he is not of your family, indeed his work is unrighteous.’” [Hud: 45-46]
And He Subhanahu wa Ta’ala said about Ibraheem:
“He said to him: ‘Verily, I am going to make you a leader of mankind’, (Ibraheem) said: ‘And of my offspring (to make leaders).’ (Allah) said: ‘My covenant includes not the Zalimeen (wrongdoers).’” [Al-Baqarah: 124]
Thus, the son of Nuh (peace be upon him) according to the Shara’i criterion is not from his family, because he did not believe in what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala revealed to his father. And the Zalimeen (wrongdoers) from the offspring of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) are exempt from the covenant of leadership made by Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala since they did not follow what Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala revealed to their father Ibraheem (peace be upon him). So the call to the sons of Ibraheem (peace be upon him) today is Jahil (ignorant) and a politically motivated call. It is forbidden to call for it and invite eople to it. This is because the intention is to fight Islam, divert the Muslims from their Deen, justify the treacherous peace treaty with the Jews and concede to them what they usurped from the blessed land of Palestine, so that relations with them may be normalised and Israel can be accepted as a state in the Middle East.
